• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Is agnosticism intellectual cowardice?

Theism, agnosticism, and atheism are all correct, as they deal with beliefs. Believe in something or disbelief in it or claim you either do not know or cannot know, all three positions deal only with belief.
 
If belief cuts it as intellect for you, that is. For me, it doesn't necessarily. I can believe that the Earth is being rotated around the Sun by pink fairies by a way of a long leash, sort of as a yo-yo. It's an honest belief, does it count as intelligence? Don't think so.

Theism advocates for exactly that, completely ridiculous beliefs that have no evidence going for them in reality. So it's anything but intelligent.
Agnosticism says you can't know either way, which is fair to say, because you actually can't know at this point in time.
Atheism says that the theists got it wrong, for certain. That's a little arrogant, because in reality they cannot know. However, as I previously said, such radical notions are often needed to shake sense into the thick skulls of some people.

You have to confront people about beliefs, otherwise they won't listen to you. They might not listen anyway, but hell, not everyone can be cured, right?
 
I more or less agree with this ^. I'd also say that it is the more RELIGIOUS theistic people (rather than say spiritual) whom hold radically irrational beliefs with no evidence to support which. I believe more in possibilities rather than full fledged agreeance to an idea. Maybe I'm a fence sitter.
 
A belief is equivalent to an opinion. Neither are grounded by fact, but can still be grounded by some sort of logic.

In regard to the topic, I do not think that agnosticism is cowardly. It seems perfectly rational to me, which is why I am agnostic. Although, I'm inclined to doubt that there is any theistic entity. If there is a god, I believe it would be more of an idea, rather than a tangible entity. These are all just theories, though, and I do not strictly subscribe to any of them. I try to remain as open as possible. Although, I've read about some religions. The occult has always been an interest, and when I first read the "as above, so below" piece of Hermeticism it really blew my mind, and I think it forever expanded my way of thinking. It really struck me, and caused almost what I would consider to be an epiphany, so I'll always have a soft spot for that idea.

Pantheism is also very interesting, and something that I could understand easily. When I read these sort of things, some ideas just seem to "align" with my thinking process. You can learn a lot by choosing to not adhere to any strict religious belief, but to still be open and research them.
 
Naked it

-=SS=- said:
Richard Dawkins is a total airhead fucknut. He is also the dumbest smart person there is. Someone with his extensive knowledge on biological systems and genetics should have no trouble at all in realizing just how fucking unlikely it is for life to exist in the first place, let alone continue to evolve into more complex systems. The guy is a total loon who can't see beyond his own fat ego.. academically very smart, but that doesn't count for shit if you have no real life insight to back it up. His attack on others for having a faith is fucking irritating as hell. Infact all militant atheists are fucking irritating as hell and I wish they would just take one hit of NN-DMT or do some deep meditation, and then just STFU.

I have time for agnostics but generally I don't for atheists as they tend to be intellectually walled up behind some kind of scientific framework and refuse to admit a position of ignorance. I think the agnostic position is a humble position to take definitely.
Click to expand...
 
I'm a confirmed agnostic. I am not the creator and therefore do not know what creation is or means. It's quite simple imo. Agnostics FTW.
 
1.Cowardice has nothing to do with raw intelligence.

2.You mention these people as Christians
One can be intelligent and one can be a Christian.

3.The topic is agnostic people.
Wanna try and stay in topic and stop using straw man tactics ?
 
The failings of sweet P's logic is that he has huddled into space defined by a standstill.

Thousand of years ago we were mistified by things that today are "common sense" and have explained countless "unexplainable phenomenons.

Maybe cowardice isn't the best description but it certainly doesn't help with progression and I know no individual speaks for everyone but those who say it's the only logical approach couldn't be any further from the truth and that line of thinking is not what pushes science or the advancement of the human race.

I would rather call it intellectual laziness.
There is answer,a fundamental truth.Donwe have access to it yet ? No.Can we ? Who knows ....at this point in time.

Agnostics is a waste of time and serves nothing and I myself but can't feel like many others that it seems to spit in the face of research and passions arguments.


Are you not comfortable either side yet ?
That's fine and maybe you will find a whole other way of looking at things to explain things but to define fence sitting as a class or answer of its own is ridiculous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top